Posted
by
samzenpus
on Wednesday July 06, 2011 @06:52PM
from the cool-before-you dept.

An anonymous reader writes "If you are manufacturing notebooks and you are using hardware that needs to be cooled down occasionally, you may be in the crosshairs of IPventure, which claims patent rights to an approach that is common in all notebooks today. For now, the company appears to be establishing its case by suing Fujitsu and Lenovo over the use of its invention in the Lifebook and Thinkpad series of products."

So the method is common in notebooks today... meaning it has been in wide use for at least a few years now. The patent holder just waited until everyone had committed to selling that design, so that they could just sue everyone. Submarine patent tactics if I ever saw them.

Basically you don't get to keep a patent for doing nothing. Basically I'd do it so that within 6 months of the time you should reasonably be aware there is a product using your patent, you must contact that person about either licensing your patent or discontinuing the use of your technology. Failure to do so renders your patent invalid.

So you don't have to develop something right away, that's ok, but if someone does develop it, you have to get on talking to them, you can't hide in the tall grass until it i

How about requiring the suing party to pay all the costs of the defense if the judge decides they could have known they didn't have a case? That should really cut back on the retarded lawsuits, I'd say.

Well off the top of my head there is SpeedStep which came with the 1GHz PIII, that is 2000, there is PowerNow which is even older, it came on the K6-2 which is 1998, And APM on motherboards had 0x0F which is the code for engage/disengage power management and that's from 92 but I don't know if that would count. And of course this isn't counting embedded CPUs which I'm sure had power saving even earlier.

So yeah, another BS patent. Is anyone surprised? You can see why companies have patent warchests though so

The problem is that prior art must be submitted in a rather narrow window of "public review," otherwise I believe there's a rather high burden to claim prior art in court if you seek to have a patent overturned (i.e. which means the public needs to be actively reading every proposed patent posted online and commenting on it to count). I'm not completely up on the new revisions to US Patent law, but I think the general trend is to discourage patent invalidation based on prior art unless that prior art is su

It's basically where if the CPU cooling degrades, the CPU runs slower. Which is exactly how the Pentium 4's thermal protection system works. It's a bit more dynamic than the patent (which has 3 clocks - normal and two divided ones), in that the Pentium 4's uses a clock-skipping mechanism controlled by the thermal diode. If it's too hot, the the clock is gated. It's un-gated when the processor cools down.

Maybe not quite as severe as losing your patent completely, but you definitely shouldn't have the right to sue them for exorbitant damages if you're conniving enough to watch them get away with it until they're ripe to be sued.

Maybe not quite as severe as losing your patent completely, but you definitely shouldn't have the right to sue them for exorbitant damages if you're conniving enough to watch them get away with it until they're ripe to be sued.

However, patent forfeiture could be used as a punitive measure if you DO sue someone past the deadline.

Maybe not quite as severe as losing your patent completely, but you definitely shouldn't have the right to sue them for exorbitant damages if you're conniving enough to watch them get away with it until they're ripe to be sued.

You shouldn't, and you don't. You can't sue for damages that occur between the time that you become aware of the infringement and the time that you file the lawsuit or otherwise notify the infringer (possibly excepting some brief window that allows to get all your paperwork together).

It isn't that bad, and wouldn't be the first case where the state of mind/knowledge of a party decides about guilty/not guilty.

The example is the crime of "receiving stolen goods." It's a crime if you knowingly receive the goods or have a reasonable suspicion the goods might be stolen. If you had no reason to suspects the goods were stolen, you're not guilty. It's up to the court to establish what you knew or suspected. And while everyone can say "I didn't know it was stolen", fences land in prison all the

There is a penalty. It's called the doctrine of laches, and it essentially says that if someone's behavior was damaging to you, but you opted to wait an unreasonable time before suing so that more damages would accrue, then you may forfeit the right to collect some or all of the compensation to which you would otherwise be entitled.

Now, it doesn't always work, because it's an affirmative defense, which means the defendant bears the initial burden to show that the plaintiff slept on their rights when they could have sued earlier. Some defendants look at that risk and opt to settle instead of trying it out on a jury.

Thing is... good luck proving that they knew about it before they say they did. Designs are not exactly publicized, and it takes time to learn about possible offenders, and then pull the things apart and prove that the infringers are infringing.

Of course, I imagine that there are many patent trolls that are purposely using submarine tactics to maximize their return, but as we found out in the Casey Anthony case, it's not what you know, it's what you can prove in a court of law that matters.

Yes and women who willfully allow themselves to be raped should be stoned to death. See how fun this logic is?

Uh...

First: Your analogy should be "women who willfully allow themselves to be raped should forfeit relevant patents. I've never forfeited patents or been stoned to death, but I assume the former is slightly less harsh.

Second: Someone should make a law about internet debate and rape similar to Godwin's. I've noticed whenever law arguments degrade into "lets compare this situation to rape," No reasonable debate continues. Patent infringement is not the "brain rape."

The company claims that two patents are affected. Patent 7,506,190, awarded in March 2009, and patent 7,937,599, awarded in May of this year. Both patents describe “thermal and power management for computer systems.”

While this clearly has been a novel approach, it is questionable if it was novel when the original patent claimed by IPventure was filed on June 22, 2007 and there may be a good chance that prior art could invalidate both of its patents.

It's almost the opposite, actually. They sued almost as soon as one of the patents was awarded.

On the other hand, the older of the two was filed in 2007, while SpeedStep was introduced on the Pentium III in about 2000 or 2001. What their patents describe is essentially the thermostat logic: step down frequency when the temperature gets too hot. Surely that idea has existed from the introduction of dynamic frequency scaling?!?

But, the patents also talk about fan speed control... I'm pretty sure that was the whole point of AMD's Cool'n'quiet.

I know that I am a skeptic by nature and have no time for fools, but I seriously wonder if I should get a job in the US patent office. I am not quite sure what I would do with all that blow and all those hookers, but surely they come with the position?

Seriously though, I do wonder if anyone in a position to change/improve the patent system ever wonders how all these asinine patents are awarded when there is so much clear prior art or they are so ludicrously common sense applications.

I still have a working laptop from 2001 which has a stepping CPU and variable fan speed, both of which are controlled on basis of the temperature sensor, which I will happily donate to the defense as an example of prior art.

A sober thought when one considers that US Supreme Court ruled last year that a corporation could bribe our elected representatives with as much money as would get their special legislation enacted, and there didn't have to be any accounting to anyone as to how much or to whom. These bribes are euphemistically called "campaign donations", but if the politician retires s/he can convert those funds to private use.

My understanding is that patent examiners simply go off the information that's filed alongside the patent. If a patent isn't really novel, they wait until a re-examination request comes in - usually as a result of litigation around the patent.

My understanding is that patent examiners simply go off the information that's filed alongside the patent. If a patent isn't really novel, they wait until a re-examination request comes in - usually as a result of litigation around the patent.

A penalty for deliberately trying to mislead the patent examiners would go a long way towards resolving this problem...

A penalty for deliberately trying to mislead the patent examiners would go a long way towards resolving this problem...

It's called inequitable conduct, and it can get your patent thrown out if someone else can prove it to a judge.

That's not quite the definition of 'penalty' I was looking for. That would be like the punishment for being caught shoplifting that you have to put the stuff back - the only thing wasted would be the shoplifters time and bus fare into town, and they could just try again tomorrow using a different tactic.

The definition of 'penalty' I was looking for would be a hefty fine, or maybe an audit/reexamination at their expense on all their existing patents that they wish to keep.

Yea, making patent holders liable for all re-examination costs - including third party costs brought to the attention of the patent office and used as evidence to invalidate a patent - would be a good deterrent from filing obvious patents and then trolling for license fees.

If there was booze and hookers in a patent office, I'd probably still be working there... .At least when I was there, it wasn't the officers being keen on granting, actually. At least the large majority wasn't. It was the bean-counters in higher management. Only a granted patent 'produces' more income in form of fees, renewal fees, and so forth. A rejected patent doesn't, except of the initial examination fee.

Do not always try to blame the poor officers. Try looking at capitalism instead. An office like the patent office ought to be financed by the tax payer, yes, the tax payer, to provide unbiased services. Services in the best interest of the country, that is the tax payer. It should not need to create its own funding, nor be used to create additional cash-flow into the coffers of the state / government.In case of the latter two, there will always be politicians in higher position to 'expedite' this cash-flow and that needs granted patents, not rejections.Plus, the applicants want patents. Look left and right, and you see many who'd be proud to have one. In our days, you might even need one or more for a position, a tenure, etc. And don't forget the courts who at times create case law that is not necessarily based on sound engineering facts.Again, the disease is not in the office, it is a societal disease of prioritizing monetary gains at all cost anywhere.

Temperature-controlled fans are also pretty old though. I bought such a CPU fan from arctic cooling in 2002. Even my computer from 1993 had a temperature-controlled fan in its power supply. It was just switching on and off, but still temperature-controlled.

But, the patents also talk about fan speed control... I'm pretty sure that was the whole point of AMD's Cool'n'quiet.

And I, with absolutely no experience or knowledge of manufacturing, simply cannot believe that dynamic fan speed control based on a temperature input has not been around for at least 50 years. Seriously! (Along with dynamic pump speed control based on temperature and/or pressure. And dynamic valve position based on temperature--ok that one is a little different in that I do know it's been around for a long time.)

TFA already mentions that there is a great likelihood to invalidated these two patents based on prior art.

After reading this article, I started to wonder. Now they sued right away, it seems without even informing potential infringers that they were infringing on the patent, let alone trying to negotiate an out-of-court deal with them.

These patents were in the making since 2007, that's enough time to at least warn infringing manufacturers that their method of cooling was patent pending, and that they may h

Prior inaction? They were just granted the patent a couple months ago. You can't file a patent suit until you've been granted the patent. Hence why so many trolls deliberately delay the process as much as possible.

What happens in the worst submarine patents [wikipedia.org] is that company files the initial patent, then repeatedly updates and amends it before its granted. Those updates and amendments track industry practices. After a few years, the patent is granted, but the date of original filing still applies.

It hasn't been as readily possible to do this since 2000, but something like it still happens.

So the method is common in notebooks today... meaning it has been in wide use for at least a few years now. The patent holder just waited until everyone had committed to selling that design, so that they could just sue everyone. Submarine patent tactics if I ever saw them.

I'm just wondering how they received it in the first place. Processor activity/thermal throttling is, um, not exactly news. Dynamic clocking for power savings was an option starting with some of the P3s. All the P4s have done thermal protection underclocking(and a fair few have needed it) and those were released in 2000. This isn't even counting the sort of stuff that presumably has been going on rather longer in embedded devices, which have always been greatly power and/or heat constrained.

Not all of the patents have been overturned yet, mind you, but the case isn't looking good for Oracle.

I think there's two reasons you don't hear of this happening: first, I think a lot of companies just settle out of court instead of going through the mess. Second, and more significantly, I think it has to be a high-profile case with companies that Slashdot cares about (such as Google).

Settling out of court doesn't invalidate the patent, it just reduces the likelyhood that the patent holder will sue with it. But if they know they are losing, it is in the patent holder's best interests to settle quickly rather than lose that weapon.

In this case there's a lot of prior art. My circa 2002 VAIO had a Pentium 4 m processor with speedstep technology that could do that. I think that AMD's cool 'n' quite can as well. On top of that, I'd really love to hear them explain how these patents are different from either of those technologies.

You don't the point, fully. Yes. it might be overturned. But you sound like that was 'okay'. It isn't. Most SMEs simply lack the funds, it hampers innovation, it increases the end users' costs since the expenditure has to be recovered.Your point is correct, but the 'help' of invalidating is more often than not impossible to achieve.Don't cure the symptoms. Cure the root cause: Have only valid applications granted.

Odd that the article doesn't mention the patents at hand are continuations from 5,752,011 dating from in fact 1994.

I do also note the very long list of prior art on each patent. They were found to be novel or inventive over all that prior art. One would have to read the entire file wrapper on PAIR to understand why they were granted over that. Not a fun/easy/quick job.

Isn't there something like a "grant report" that comes with the granted patent, that explicitly lists which bits and pieces were found to be novel, and what the patent is granted upon? Would make life a lot easier for many people. And the examiner must have read it all, and figured out the novel bits, already.

You're probably right, but that doesn't seem to prevent a number of/.ers from singing the praises of corporate power generally, and IP law in particular, every chance they get. It's possible that they're paid shills; more likely they're just victims of a kind of economic Stockholm Syndrome.

No, it completely fails to be a novel idea. When you are running anything (from an engine to your body) fast and it starts to overheat, you slow it down. It is common sense to anyone. Everyone does this instinctively. It is not a new idea. Patenting that as a novel process is as ridiculous as patenting driving at lower RPMs when your car gets close to overheating.

Well, I don't remember if they all used fans for cooling, but every Mac laptop since the 500 series in 1994 used CPU clock throttling to manage heat and power consumption. If the patent goes back much prior to that, it will be expired. They're gonna have to come up with something really surprising to avoid getting that patent thrown out due to prior art.

In United States patent law, "swearing back of a reference" is a process where an inventor, in certain circumstances, can get a US patent even though the invention became public before the inventor filed an original patent application.

That applies only if it was the original inventor's invention that was made public before the application, not if another person/company independently invents the same thing, which is the very description of prior art.

I didn't say the applicant was the one who disclosed it. I said it was the original applicant's invention that was disclosed. An independent invention disclosed to the public prior to the original application is prior art, and the applicant must then demonstrate why it's not prior art. In fact, it doesn't even have to be publicly disclosed prior to the application for it to qualify as prior art, but public disclosure helps document that it was in fact prior and independent. For an attorney, you don't read v

(g)(1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person's invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person's invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.

As I said in my original post, the applications date back to June 1994, so they *may* have the laptops beat. Applications take months to draft, so the original conception of the idea would almost certainly have been prior to May 16. Now, if there were earlier press releases regarding the PowerBooks, those might predate their conception, but it's uncertain.

And it's obvious to anyone who has worked in any kind of manufacturing, especially computer design and manufacturing, it takes more than a few months to design, build, test, and bring to market a functioning computer, even more so for a laptop. That the PowerBook 500 series was shipping on May 16th with such features means that the hardware and software to support those features had to be implemented many months earlier. And since Apple was designing and building their own chipsets, it was likely more than

"However, when prolonged activity (i.e., sustained fast clock frequency) causes the processor’s temperature to become dangerously high for proper operation, the clock frequency is reduced so as to maintain processing speed at a reduced speed while preventing overheating".

Clearly, application of this logic is non obvious, to anyone skilled in the art of X non iterative.Oh, that's right, I forgot -- The non-obviousness tests are not applied to patents because they don't exist...

patent filed in 2007, rewarded in 2009I just checked a pentium4 datasheet, marked copyright november 2000 it describes exactly what that patent is about, reducing clock frequency in response to temperature.

This is interesting because it affects the CPUs and the GPUs. But I believe this dates back to at least the Pentium 4 which would slow down if it started to over heat which is what this patent covers. Their going after Fujitsu and Lenovo because they probably know they can't win against Intel or AMD. What the computer manufacturers need to do is to tell a Judge that they unknowingly bought a possibly infringing product from a reputable supplier and that IPventure needs to sue Intel and AMD who are actually

I think that Lenovo should, as a sign of friendship and cooperation towards them, replace a Thinkpad's CPU fan and heatsink and replace it with a dead squirrel then mail it to them. You know, to try and prove that they're going to get away from that whole CPU cooling thing.

I independently innovated a profile for RivaTuner that uses this exact same technique to cool a GPU in the worst-case scenario, by underclocking it when the fan is already at 100% past a certain threshold. I guess I'm a naughty infringer, too? I'm not even a fully matriculated genius, so if *I* can come up with the idea on my own then just how unique and non-obvious can it be?

The people who operate IPVentures are the only sort of trolls we should be trying to hunt down with torches. Forum trolls are pin

If one looks at the wording of the U.S. Constitution and some of the writings of the time on patents, the purpose of patents in U.S. law is to encourage people to make their inventions known (rather than keeping them as trade secrets). Looked at in this way puts a somewhat different interpretation on "obviousness". If you make something and it is obvious how you did it, it fails the obviousness test. There is no advantage to society from giving you a patent, someone else can duplicate what you have done even if you never tell anyone how you did it.

Obviousness was one of several patent concepts that arose from the Progress Clause but that wasn't originally a part of the statute. Instead, it was formed as a judicial doctrine that viewed obviousness as contrary to the limits on the patent system in the Progress Clause (in the 1850 Supreme Court case Hotchkiss v. Greenwood [justia.com]).

The concept of obviousness, along with the general guideline of "obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art", was later incorporated into the statute. In fact, many of the patent eligibility requirements were originally formulated by the courts and later adopted by Congress.